Hi, thanks for adding this.

However, please note that dashes are *never* used as crossing markings for pedestrian-only crossings of public roads in the UK and the permissible markings are prescribed by legislation (specifically TSRGD 2016).

The double dashed line transverse markings on side roads are give way markings, which are tagged as separate highway=give_way nodes. They have nothing to do with the crossing.

Crossings like this are usually crossing=unmarked + crossing:markings=no

I see, thanks for the quick reply. I'll try to check it soon and have added notes at both approaches to the underpass.

Is the cycle prohibition in the Euston Underpass real, i.e. explicitly signed as such, or just a vague feeling that cyclists maybe ought not to go that way?

Pedestrian-only crossings of public roads in the UK are *never* marked with dashes. This is defined by legislation, specifically TSRGD 2016.

If it's a signalised crossing (pelican or puffin), dots may be used, but are not a legal requirement. These are also crossing=traffic_signals, not crossing=marked

If it's a zebra crossing, dots may be used in addition to the zebra markings.

If there is a double dashed line transverse road marking between a crossing over a side road and a main road, this is a give way marking (mapped as a separate highway=give_way node). It has nothing to do with the crossing, which is likely to be crossing=unmarked crossing:markings=no

The wiki may help you here crossing:markings=*

Why did you tag the obviously unmarked crossing node/12430797573 as a marked crossing, then add entirely fabricated tags about it being button operated and having tactile signals for the visually impaired?

Thanks for updating these.

Just one query - can you remember why iD suggested that you should change way/256560674 from highway=footway to the less specific highway=path?

@ChrissW-R1 you won't get a response from @gomedia91, as I discovered while trying to find out why they had mis-tagged almost every crossing=traffic_signals node in the Cardiff area (hopefully now fixed).

I would simply undelete the relation and check that it hasn't been broken in any other ways.

[Review requested]

Thanks for surveying and adding this. An alternative to mapping it as a highway=cycleway would be to use leisure=track + sport=bmx (or sport=cycling) and an appropriate value for mtb:scale=*. This should avoid potential problems of cycle and pedestrian routers trying to use it if mapped as a highway.

If the closed section of footway ( way/884710002 ) across this area has reopened and follows the same course, you could remove the access=no tag.

There's some documentation on the wiki which might be helpful:
leisure=track
sport=cycling
sport=bmx
mtb:scale=*

Some of these "buildings" were parked vehicles.

way/1329211667
way/1329211747
way/1329211710

Thanks for spotting and fixing this! They appear to have been added by a user using microsoft/BuildingFootprints as a source, who didn't make much of an effort to check what they added against aerial imagery.

It might reduce the risk of this being repeated if you could add the coach park as an area with amenity=parking + parking=surface + appropriate access tags (presumably private?).

Thanks for adding these. Would it be worth tagging these as building=storage_tank rather than building=yes?

building=storage_tank

Reverted by @JezCrow in changeset/160043393

(Review requested)

That looks fine, thanks.

Also, please don't delete driveways unless they no longer exist. I will undelete the ones you removed in this changeset.

Mis-tagged crossing fixed changeset/159982087

Please stop doing this. Pedestrian crossings at traffic signals are not uncontrolled and persistently mis-tagging them as such gives misleading information to data consumers.

Grow up. Vandalism reverted.

Has the driveway been removed?

If not, it should be tagged as highway=service + service=driveway (+ access=private if appropriate).

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

If a road is a driveway, it should be tagged as highway=service + service=driveway.
service=driveway

(Review requested)

The position can be fixed when the aerial imagery catches up, so that's fine.

I see that you have already added junction=roundabout to the circular way in changeset/159739033

Thanks for adding it and checking LLDC.

I've updated it using more recent INSPIRE data than the OSM overlay, which is a little out of date.
changeset/159709953